Читать книгу Obligations of the Harp - Arthur Saltzman - Страница 6

1 The Table on the Planet

The arrangement contains the desire of

The artist. But one confides in what has no

Concealed creator.

—Wallace Stevens, “So-and-So Reclining on Her Couch”

It may never have happened, or it may not have happened precisely as the theory would have us believe, but if evolution happened, it apparently happened according to one of three models, for they are the models that have endured.

One is the racetrack, along whose color-coded lanes the earliest vertebrates, given a running Precambrian start, sprint through 500-plus million years toward the here and now. The planet has been fraught with offspring for a few billion years, in fact, and the majority fail to complete the marathon, their collapses occurring invisibly and ages before they’d have come into view of the grandstands. Indeed, most of the dinosaurs whose fragments we’re familiar with cannot leap the steeple from the Mesozoic Era to the Cenozoic, and the next contestants tread upon their fossils. Some who do survive the marathon do not survive as they began it. Eohippus, for instance, drops out, leaving the modern horse to deliver the mail. A given lizard may streamline every thousand centuries or so, sloughing a dozen or more precedent semblances on its way, dumping ballast for the long haul. Certain amphibians carry the baton legless ancestors brought the first half-million generations. Meanwhile, a few mischievous species prominent in the Holocene stretch slipped in recently, perhaps ducking in from behind a dying herd during that catastrophe’s distraction; some would say their success is tempered by the deceit. The fittest are left standing, slithering, soaring, or treading water at the ever-receding finish line, leaving immeasurable time and carnal tonnage in their wake.

Tolstoy wrote that happy families are all alike. From the long view of biology, unhappy families are all alike, too. Been there. Been them.

A second viable diagram shows Creation coursing in several unpredictable directions from a hypothetical seminal event. Call it biology’s own version of the Big Bang. Here the way species spread from the center recalls how cracks in the windshield can continue for years after it’s been struck by a BB or a pebble a truck kicked up. Whatever existed during the first eons—that rudimentary zodiac—was presumably packed close to the core, after which the traces of random gambits, impasses, and mysteriously juried amendments to the constitution of life on Earth become visible. Everything about this depiction is unsettling: not only the unlucky animals born too close to the epicenter but all successive creatures as well are perched precariously over faults, which, based on what we know of faults, are liable to grow. Logic dictates that because those fractures have persisted for so long, we, too, will eventually tumble in after the majority.

Then there is the so-called Tree of Life, a metaphor bequeathed to us by Darwin himself. Many find this the most appealing of the three models: whereas the racetrack model emphasizes lethal competition and the shattered glass model accident, the Tree of Life is a community roost, consolingly organic, with a different beast blooming from every bud. Single-celled animals hug the trunk, while increasingly complex organisms roost and ramify further out. Trilobites and other unimaginably ancient entities verified only by the barest carbon outlines make the oldest claims nearest the bole, with millions of insects and other biological minutiae infesting ground level with them. The lower branches are hung with cuttlefish and tube coral, decked with plankton, caterpillars, and blood stars as if to celebrate a Christmas held millennia before the arrival of the putative guest of honor. A jungle of more advanced vertebrates nest in the canopy—as in New York City, priority manifests as altitude—until finally, Man, having alighted last, rides highest of the higher mammals; he commands the branch closest to heaven, his eminence depending on the slightest twig.

These models are models of necessity: they ordain a trackable past and a reasonably foreseeable future for every constituent, from plants to prime ministers, from mollusks to Machiavelli, from algae to Elvis. It’s safe to say that they are not the only options. Once the standing committee rescinded the biblical image of the ark, with every current animal and animal to come coupled in its impossible cargo, once the suspicion arose that our souls are not outsourced by the Lord Himself, there must have been other proposals that received a hearing. Consider a layout on the order of the London Underground, with each species stationed on its isolated platform; some will catch expresses, some will get stuck on local lines, and some bygone animals will remain stranded altogether. Picture the whirling Earth as a centrifuge whose populations separate and resolve. What about an Escher-inspired digestive system, whose contents are constantly being circulated, absorbed, or expelled? Or a bank of elevators. A miraculously engendering rainfall that precipitates everyone in its spill. The interstate highway system. A charm bracelet. The ultimate gumbo. An immense Pachinko game, whose random paths and probabilities our advents take. The interstices of the U.S. Tax Code—how many have perished trying to navigate its narrows?—or the financial agent’s ledger, in which each of us is listed as a credit and a debit together, as once and future dust. Try the declension of government powers, with its Hobbesian population vying for perks and office space, and with its cubicles checked and balanced against one another. A theater, whose structured seating chart ranges from the simplest groundlings to the lucky personages occupying the royal box. Then again, maybe Creation comes down to a construction as common as boxes stacked in a closet. (Going by such a diagram, with all species wrapped in boxed sets, it is obvious that caskets are the main thing living things share.) These and a hundred other wayward arrangements might serve the idiosyncrasies science encounters.

All this proves is that the details of evolution (whether God, the devil, or any engineer is in the details or not) are maddeningly obscure, like an argument in a distant room. Life has been conceived in the conditional tense. We might think of these depictions as “whether patterns,” if we may be pardoned the pun. Because in a sense every animal update puns on the shape and function of its parent, by punning ourselves we are merely borrowing from evolution’s own figurative history, anyway. Out of the ocean’s endless approaches and approximations life began, and ever since, approaches and approximations describe its perpetuation and perpetuate its description.

Given a choice of metaphors, I prefer a flip book: even though agile handling provides the illusion of a smooth evolution, closer inspection reveals gaps in the manuscript, which current findings in the fossil record confirm. The gaps, though, are what gall us most. The unseen shoving that upsets the queue. Some species prevail, some are plowed over, and if nothing else is known for certain, it is clear that it isn’t virtue that got us and any other chosen taxonomy through the gate.

One might say, in an attempt to appease the creationists, that the Tree of Life doesn’t fall far from the apple. Breaks in the terrestrial manuscript, however, do not mean that creationists win the day, much less the definition of time. If the evolutionists’ version of the world is based on generation after generation of subtle paraphrase, the creationists’ is a stupor of continuity plagiarized verbatim from God. No said-and-done scheme they might devise accommodates any organic scrap we’ve encountered so well as the incremental Genesis evolution subscribes to.



The ascension of cells, whether envisioned as a race, a ripple effect, or a totemic orchard, may conclude with humanity, but recent studies make mankind look less and less mandatory. Lest we get too smug about our fifteen seconds of geologic dominance, Stephen Jay Gould reminds us that “progress does not rely (and is not even a primary thrust of) the evolutionary process.” The same disclaimers go for Homo sapiens. Organisms earn no extra credit for complexity. There is no special award for gorgeousness, either. Human supremacy, for what it’s worth and so long as it lasts, smacks of some vague exchange of favors behind the scenes. The history of habitation is narrated as a bildungsroman, and human beings are the author, hero, and happy ending. But once we “see the Earth again, / Cleared of its stiff and stubborn, man-locked set,” as Wallace Stevens’s angel of reality advises we do, existence becomes a shell game. Furthermore, fossil evidence is hearsay that doesn’t automatically hold up in court, and whatever chart we employ is an elaborate confession of extenuating circumstances. And when we add to that the fact that man’s recent reign has lasted, oh, about two percent as long as the frog’s did, it’s pretty hard to muster much arrogance.

Scientists bandy the beaks of finches and debate the opalescence of the inshore squid, but surely there is no more relevant concern for the layman than by what sort of ape the scientists themselves were fathered. In Herzog, Saul Bellow’s hero devotes one of his notorious mental letters to the issue of our issue: “Latest intelligence from the Olduvai Gorge in East Africa gives grounds to suppose that man did not descend from a peaceful arboreal ape, but from a carnivorous, terrestrial ape, a beast that hunted in packs and crushed the skulls of prey with a club or femoral bone.” Even if genetics is not the whole of our destiny, the news still packs a wallop. “It sounds bad,” Herzog concludes, but “bad” is not the half of it. If the apes we’re made from conquered through combat rather than diplomacy, it is not simply military strategy but their own essences that would-be peacemakers dispute. Not beneficence but blood is in our blood, in which human beings may have been marinating ever since the first hominids rose up with whatever weaponry they could get their opposable thumbs around some two million years or so ago.

Nevertheless, a propensity for violence is not the exception that rules us, much less guarantees our rule. Classification is primarily concerned with uniqueness, so man’s task is to determine what special quality determines us as us. What, in other words, is the most singular behavior in our biology? Glancing at some of the Latin we’ve usually assigned our ancestors, who derived from one or another set of comparatively ambitious apes, we discover men who walked upright, arrived from the south, developed fire, or were handy enough with tools to leave incisions for Homo sapiens to brood about. Those possessing several of these credentials, of course, got past the early rounds of natural selection. As humans grew used to their status, their deviance from other creatures took on other forms, including an interest in tradition, communication through symbols, cost accounting, and cooking their kill before consuming it.

As for building monuments, bringing gifts, establishing neighborhood watch programs, whispering endearments during intercourse, or sandbagging ourselves with babies we educate and adore, these are noble attributes, but they are not unique to people and hence, cannot properly designate us. Although they are less flattering, subtler characteristics may home in our identity better . . . once we realize the right Latin-activated phrase for them. We humans root for the Raiders, hail taxis, shop for shoes, use the latrine, and alter our wills, any one of which sets us apart from all who, if we buy the Tree of Life concept, are forever mired in the flora they adorn. Maybe we’ve been especially hard-wired for wonder or for worry—both proposals compel and could sustain lobbies. We feel remorseful and ashamed; we pine and we pray. In these ways and countless others, we will not be subsumed.

One zoologist I heard being interviewed on NPR—yes, subscribing to public radio is another candidate for distinguishing people—contended that monogamy is the signature perversity of our species. By comparison, flight is less startling, mutation from a larval stage less sensational, urinating to certify one’s property and committing suicide less peculiar. A sea urchin’s busy cilia, a western banded gecko’s detachable tail, a glass fish’s transparency, an oyster’s variable foot, a mother pelican’s washing down its fledglings’ dinner with her own blood—none of these raises an eyebrow anywhere in the animal kingdom the way our wedding vows do. Even the other members of our genus find the exclusivity of bride and groom peculiar. Research proves that even cannibalism is more typical than allowing the same presence to make the same depression forever in the same bed and, under extreme circumstances, more practical as well.

Or perchance by our neuroses you may know us. Doctor Seuss tells the story of a bear, a rabbit, and a worm competing for bragging rights. The bear could smell the subtlest odor at a remarkable distance; the rabbit could hear a sound just as faint and far away; but the worm defeated the other animals with his amazing vision. In a memorable illustration, he launched his eyesight beyond the horizon, over the curve of the Earth, and all the way around the globe until he was able to see himself from behind. One of the good doctor’s reliable delights was designing beings that embodied obsessions just this side of what even children recognize as our own. The worm’s ambushing himself with self-regard may not be one of Doctor Seuss’s most fantastic inventions, but it is definitely one that profoundly implicates his readers.

As if by reflex, we believe that Nature is as abuzz with us as we are consumed with ourselves. If not Seuss’s conceited annelid, the hero of Vladimir Nabokov’s “Signs and Symbols,” who is convinced that he is shadowed and colluded over by everything else in nature, may serve as the mascot of our species. “Clouds in the staring sky transmit to one another, by means of slow signs, incredibly detailed information regarding him. His inmost thoughts are discussed at nightfall, in manual alphabet, by darkly gesticulating trees.” But if this “referential maniac” is paranoid, his disease has reach. To be sure, ever since the self invented “the self” (arguably around the time Renaissance painters made faces to crowd out the landscape and intercept the sky, possibly as early as early man first clutched his own chest in his death throes), we have been installing more mirrors than windows, until today there are more personal websites than persons to warrant them.

And no websites see our penchants better than those continuous visual diaries whose subjects so effectively surround themselves with surveillance equipment that they are under inspection twenty-four hours a day. Evidently, rather than feel orphaned for a single unattended moment, they encourage Big Brother to adopt them. To be is to be perceived, they reason, and it does not appear to matter whether the agent of that perception is an angel touching the shoulder or a stranger casing the shower. “See me,” they say, which is, after all, the aim of every input, as well as every petrified vestige and artifact, every claw print and songline. It would take a model coterminous with the world to guarantee it. If the perpetually Web-cast are correct, an inadvertently tripped switch could snuff out a species; a computer virus could trigger a catastrophe on the order of the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. While it is not the exclusive fate of human beings to suffer that or any other fatality, it is their exclusive fate to realize it.



In order to inspire its patrons to increase their endowments, the board of directors for the San Diego Zoo came up with a novel idea: an art sale. Specifically, they decided to sell the works of the zoo creatures themselves, thereby enabling them to help earn their keep. Paws and pelts, muzzles and tails were loaded with paint, and in an orgy of aleatory technique, the animals scored, strafed, swatted, stamped, mauled, or bellied about their canvases. It was all in good fun and for a good cause, and there was no question of alerting the ASPCA. Those creatures that could not be induced to use this medium still contributed: a shark-bitten steel rod, a hornbill’s shed feathers, and the castings of a python, for example, were combined in a glass tray to constitute a collage that went for a thousand dollars. The canvases were cajoled from the cages of the artists, framed, and auctioned off at prices that, while they wouldn’t have impressed Sotheby’s, nevertheless earned a considerable sum for the zoo.

One of the canvases in particular bears noting because it was the only one from the exhibit that was not abstract. A Silver Back gorilla produced a piece of admittedly minimalist but nonetheless representational art. He had taken a brush and painted a series of parallel vertical lines. Critics debated its significance, as critics are wont to do. (It is characteristic of the species.) Some suggested that he had depicted an insistent rain. Others thought that the lines of descent indicated a race history. A few said that he had merely painted the bars of his cell.

“See me,” they said.



Do not despair: all the data and excavations agree that life is a project. Do not presume, either. As Gould explains, “For all practical purposes, we’re not evolving. There’s no reason to think we’re going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever—we are what we are.” As well as all we’ll ever be. We as a species may feel like a rough copy—we still have cancer, a cramped birth canal, and a number of atavisms to work out—but we’re what Nature has submitted as a final draft.

We are stuck in our cells. We paint the bars. See us?

So where did we leave off? Once upon a time, two ape-like contingencies, while trudging toward eternity, parted ways. One made its way into oblivion quickly, as “quickly” is understood against epochs. The other began a fifty-million-year game of evolutionary telephone, with each generation speaking its genetic message to the next, who did not exactly understand it but passed it on, until it ended up in a botch of modern consciousness. And if it happened anything like that, the phenomenon left us wanting, and what’s worse, knowing that we are wanting and what’s worse. And that is that the race will have run its course, to trace that figure as far as it, and we, can go. Then may we be inscribed for a blessing in the Book of Life, as we say in my religion. It is one more abiding model, in whose infinite index all may be ordered, familiar, and found.